The European Health Promoting Hospitals (HPH) project: how far on?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Back in 1986, the World Health Organization (WHO) produced the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. The intention of the charter was to create a framework that conveyed the notions of capacity building into a structured process for health promotion action in specific settings. This charter subsequently provided the vehicle from which the Health Promoting Hospital (HPH) initiative was launched, culminating in the Budapest Declaration of Health Promoting Hospitals (WHO, 1991). The aim of this paper is to investigate the nature and progress of the European HPH movement. Despite the fact that 'pockets' of concerted and progressive activity and evaluation have emerged from the HPH initiative, the majority of the available literature demonstrates a more limited impact than perhaps the WHO might have anticipated for its efforts over the last 15 years or so. Indications are that many of the member European HPH states have struggled to move beyond the 'project' phases of their planned programmes. This is not to detract from the considerable efforts that have been made to establish HPH networks or the continuing attempts to recruit further members/institutions into the movement. Nevertheless, this account concludes that a more concerted evaluation of European HPH progress is needed to accurately measure its impact and progress. If the situation remains unchanged, perhaps a fundamental review of the strategy is worth considering.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it